It's hit the fan

[Gator]

B. Bhutto assasinated, a country filled w/ radicals and nuclear weapons is now becoming very unstable, very bad scenario. Just listened to a former CIA agent saying that civil war is realistic, as is the country being split, N and S, and that the best chance to stabilize is by Musharaff imposing martial law.

Hope this isn't considered 'political', that was not the intention.

 

[TBaGZ]

gunna get ugly

 

[sinnyc]

Marvelous: more martial law in an attempt to squelch a possible civil war in a nuclear power.

Yikes.

 

[Krautle87]

Marvelous: more martial law in an attempt to squelch a possible civil war in a nuclear power.

Yikes.

Frankly, with Musharraf in power, and Bhutto gone, the unsavory prospect of martial law is really the best option available. Certainly a more favorable COA than allowing the Islamists within a hundred miles of the country's nukes.

 

[JayBay]

Newb opinion: Definitely political...interesting...but political.

 

[DanTheMan]

Hmmmmm surely we aren't going to get involved in another mess are we????? I say give them short range newkular (GBush) missiles with enough mega tonnage to vaporize each other, then make skate parks in the glass dunes in a few hundred thousand years..... but seriously- if it were possible to take out the terrorists and keep any strays in check it would be worth the effort.....

 

[sack]

With Bhutto out of the way, Musharaff is a sure winner.

 

[Aeroscott]

I feel sorry for the Pakistani People, now they have no voice! a deathblow dealt to Democracy.

 

[Maui]

I wonder how much Iran had to do with it.

 

[Gator]

They (various terrorist orgs) have been after her for years, but she was a courageous lady and refused to back down, and paid the ultimate price. Musharraff seems to be either involved or has lost control, and in a Islamic state, known to be a breeding ground for terrorists, to be this unstable, and OVER 60 NUCLEAR WARHEADS, this is a bad situation. Knowing that Bhutto could very well be assassinated, as could Musharraff, surely some contingency plans were drawn up and in place for this scenario, be interesting to find out what those are.

I like talking about world events like this, but PLEASE let's not dive into the 'political' part of it, IE damn Democraps ruined it, Bush is a moron and it's all his fault, yada yada yada, or Rod will come in and pimp slap me.

 

[mustangbobo]

Terrorist, nukes, and civil war is a very scary combo. Could the assassination just be the first step of a well laid out plan to secure nuclear weapons? Is the Pakistan military/government capable of tending to a civil war and guarding nuclear sites which are surrounded by instability? No Way! There are regions in their own country (Afghanistan border) they cannot even enter, let alone control. Outside military intervention seems imminent for the safety of the world. Occupying a country in civil war is ugly, ugly business. No doubt the stakes are so high that the US would like to handle this (If you want the job done right, do it yourself), but we are too busy. OR ARE WE? This could be a long term project that causes us to reconsider our priorities. I hope this just goes away.

 

[Krautle87]

I wonder how much Iran had to do with it.

Frankly, probobly not too much. It's almost a foregone conclusion the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda/Taliban, which are primarily Sunni.

The Persians are Shiites. They do their dirty work through Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent, the Mahdi Army and other smaller groups in Iraq.

 

[Mike33]

Terrorist, nukes, and civil war is a very scary combo. Could the assassination just be the first step of a well laid out plan to secure nuclear weapons? Is the Pakistan military/government capable of tending to a civil war and guarding nuclear sites which are surrounded by instability? No Way! There are regions in their own country (Afghanistan border) they cannot even enter, let alone control. Outside military intervention seems imminent for the safety of the world. Occupying a country in civil war is ugly, ugly business. No doubt the stakes are so high that the US would like to handle this (If you want the job done right, do it yourself), but we are too busy. OR ARE WE? This could be a long term project that causes us to reconsider our priorities. I hope this just goes away.

Outside Military intervention? Is this a way of saying "lets drop troops in Pakistan?" That would be utterly disastorous for everyone involved and would only lead to further instability. Pakistan would never allow foriegn troops on its soil. If a civil war did break out, it would likely be very brief as the army is not splintered like the rest of the country.

The biggest worry I would have if civil war did break out in Pakistan (which is extremely unlikely) is India feeling threatened and stepping in. Pakistan's army would never lose control of the nukes; they are a very effective and compentant professional army.

 

[Gator]

Terrorist, nukes, and civil war is a very scary combo. Could the assassination just be the first step of a well laid out plan to secure nuclear weapons? Is the Pakistan military/government capable of tending to a civil war and guarding nuclear sites which are surrounded by instability? No Way! There are regions in their own country (Afghanistan border) they cannot even enter, let alone control. Outside military intervention seems imminent for the safety of the world. Occupying a country in civil war is ugly, ugly business. No doubt the stakes are so high that the US would like to handle this (If you want the job done right, do it yourself), but we are too busy. OR ARE WE? This could be a long term project that causes us to reconsider our priorities. I hope this just goes away.

Outside Military intervention? Is this a way of saying "lets drop troops in Pakistan?" That would be utterly disastorous for everyone involved and would only lead to further instability. Pakistan would never allow foriegn troops on its soil. If a civil war did break out, it would likely be very brief as the army is not splintered like the rest of the country.

The biggest worry I would have if civil war did break out in Pakistan (which is extremely unlikely) is India feeling threatened and stepping in. Pakistan's army would never lose control of the nukes; they are a very effective and compentant professional army.

I think the tensions between India and Pakistan have lessened considerably, so hopefully that's not gonna happen, the threat is Islamic terrorists, not Indians, right now anyway. As far as the Pakistani Army goes, they are very competent, but the problem is there (allegedly) are terrorist 'supporters' through out the Paki Gov't, including their intelligence org. and military. Best hope, imho, is for Musharaff to impose martial law again and crack some heads in his regime, that's if he still has enough control do do so, that's the big question.

I don't know much about our Military, but between the Iran 'threat' and Pakistan, we're not able to control all 3 situations, and don't have any clue what the answer is.

 

[mustangbobo]

I am NOT suggesting dropping our troops in Pakistan. But, somebody MAY have to. I would like to see regions of the world take care of themselves, but this doesn't always happen. The Pakistani army is competent but, civil war has a way of splintering an army (cracks are already there). The tipping point may be when elections are postponed. Civil war is bad, but it is the nukes which makes this a world crisis. Those which we call terrorist here, are sometimes referred to as friends, heroes and martyrs there. Al Qaeda is a likely partner to a splinter group in a lawless civil war. They have motive and means. What does a partner have access to? Will Al Qaeda change their priorities and resources from Iraq/Afghanistan to a bigger prize and home-field advantage in Pakistan? No US troops there to stop them. This is exactly the same environment Al Qaeda (and others) have formed relationships with governments (or factions) in the past. I cannot predict the future, I am merely saying this is one possible scenario.

 

[npedersen]

The reaction that it was the Taliban AND Al-quaida both claiming responsibilty so quickly makes me wonder. . . AND the sudden talk of Musharraff implementing marshal law, sounds too much like an attempt at taking over a country by dictatorship! The unfortunate truth is that the world will be in WWIII with it centralized in the Middle East. It is the duty of the rest of the world, not just the US to prevent this from happening.

The problem with just letting civil war to break out is that it won't just be a N and S battle, but also the terrorists from taking over an entire country while itis weak, ie Aghganistan/Taliban

 

[Gator]

I have no problem w/ Musharraff kicking ass, he 'appears' to be a ally of ours, but CAN he kick ass and stabilize, remains to be seen. The moderate Muslims in the whole region better start reeling in the radical islamic extremists, or lots of peaceful and innocent people will end up dying, because in my relatively ignorant opinion, it's a matter of time before some terrorist trips a dirty bomb or nuke here, and when that happens, a nuclear retaliation from us happen, and thats a very very scary scenario, i hope we never have to nuke anyone.